that damn report again
I’ve returned to the Police Apprehension Report, with a renewed outrage. It wells up from time to time, unexpectedly. I note that the date of the alleged offence is given, in the first paragraph, entitled ‘BREIF (sic) OVERVIEW’ as September 24, whereas in the following section, ‘VICTIM’S VERSION’, and on the front page, where the ‘offence details’ are stated, the date is September 23. A schoolboy howler, as George Galloway would put it, that will doubtless be punished by my lawyer.
Something else about this report has niggled at me, though, and I’ve just become clear about it.
On the front page, in a box headed ‘Offence details’, two offences are presented. In the first, the relevant words are ‘... had sexual intercourse with [name of alleged victim] a person of the age of 15 years’. This is the ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ charge. In the second, the relevant words are ‘…had sexual intercourse with [name again] without his consent. This, clearly, is the rape charge. At the end of each charge comes the words ‘This is a major indictable offence’.
The sentence which ends the section in the report entitled ‘POLICE VERSION’ is this: ‘Accused arrested to ensure appearance and due to the serious nature of the offence.’
Now, I’m in a particularly strong position to know that no offence of any kind took place on September 23 or 24 or any other day between myself and the plaintiff. So I take particular offence at this emphasis on the word ‘offence’, put forward as fact. Shouldn’t it be ‘alleged offence’ or ‘allegation’? The use of the words “Offence details” on the front page suggests that this is standard practice, and who knows how long it has been so. Decades perhaps. Centuries. No excuse, however. If it is standard practice, it is wrong standard practice. It must be objected to. Leaving the wording as it is is prejudicial, in the strictest sense of the word. It has more than a whiff of quod erat demonstrandum.
Oh and one more thing: that last line which read that the accused was ‘apprehended… due to the serious nature of the offence’ makes it seem that the police were perfectly justified in their action. However, if ‘offence’ here is changed to ‘allegation’, as it should be, then we see clearly the problem, for it’s plainly absurd to arrest people just because the allegation is a serious one, regardless of evidence. If the police seriously followed such a procedure, rewarding every false allegation, the justice system would quickly collapse under the weight of police incompetence.
Something else about this report has niggled at me, though, and I’ve just become clear about it.
On the front page, in a box headed ‘Offence details’, two offences are presented. In the first, the relevant words are ‘... had sexual intercourse with [name of alleged victim] a person of the age of 15 years’. This is the ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ charge. In the second, the relevant words are ‘…had sexual intercourse with [name again] without his consent. This, clearly, is the rape charge. At the end of each charge comes the words ‘This is a major indictable offence’.
The sentence which ends the section in the report entitled ‘POLICE VERSION’ is this: ‘Accused arrested to ensure appearance and due to the serious nature of the offence.’
Now, I’m in a particularly strong position to know that no offence of any kind took place on September 23 or 24 or any other day between myself and the plaintiff. So I take particular offence at this emphasis on the word ‘offence’, put forward as fact. Shouldn’t it be ‘alleged offence’ or ‘allegation’? The use of the words “Offence details” on the front page suggests that this is standard practice, and who knows how long it has been so. Decades perhaps. Centuries. No excuse, however. If it is standard practice, it is wrong standard practice. It must be objected to. Leaving the wording as it is is prejudicial, in the strictest sense of the word. It has more than a whiff of quod erat demonstrandum.
Oh and one more thing: that last line which read that the accused was ‘apprehended… due to the serious nature of the offence’ makes it seem that the police were perfectly justified in their action. However, if ‘offence’ here is changed to ‘allegation’, as it should be, then we see clearly the problem, for it’s plainly absurd to arrest people just because the allegation is a serious one, regardless of evidence. If the police seriously followed such a procedure, rewarding every false allegation, the justice system would quickly collapse under the weight of police incompetence.
posted by Stewart at 8:35 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home